IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.16374 of 2025 Decided on: 16.10.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Jitender Nirala ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Pranav Kaushal, Advocate vice Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Considering the facts of the case, order impugned herein and the nature of order being passed hereinafter, reply of the writ petition is not required to be called from the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. Vide notification dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), respondent No.1 transferred the petitioner, a Principal, from GSSS Panjain, District Mandi to GSSS Baghei Garh, District Chamba against vacancy. Petitioner instituted Jitender Nirala Vs. State of HP and Ors2 with the grievances that he had already served GSSS Thachi, District Mandi, a sub-cadre area, w.e.f. the year 2005 to 2007; He had completed the requisite tenure at the aforesaid place; Petitioner also served for requisite tenure at GSSS Triloknath, District Lahaul & Spiti, a hard and tribal area, therefore, could not have been again transferred to a hard and tribal area of GSSS Baghei Garh, District Chamba, under notification dated 28.04.2025. Noticing the above contentions of the petitioner, Jitender Nirala2 was disposed of with direction to respondent No.1/Competent Authority to consider and decide petitioner’s representation in accordance with law and applicable policy within the indicated timeline. Pursuant to above, respondent No.1 considered petitioner’s representation and vide office order dated 2 CWP No.12950 of 2025 decided on 11.08.2025 - 3 - 25.09.2025 (Annexure P-7) rejected the same. It is this order, which the petitioner has impugned in the present petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. The relevant portion of the impugned order, that gives out reasons for rejecting petitioner’s representation, reads as under:- “As per the information gathered from the Office of the Dy. Director, Higher Education, Chamba, Sh. Jitender Nirala, Principal has served for 20 (twenty) years in Distt. Mandi, 04 year & 08 months in Distt: Kullu and 02 years 06 months at GSSS Trilokinath Distt. Lahaul & Spiti. It is also pertinent to mention that Sh. Jitender Nirala, Principal was working at GSSS Panjain Distt. Mandi w.e.f. 29.09.2017. and he had completed his normal tenure at the said School. He has been transferred from GSSS Panjain Distt. Mandi to GSSS Baghei Garh Distt. Chamba with prior approval of the competent authorities, in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court passed in CWPIL No.28/2024 regarding posting of a Principal in GSSS Baghei Garh Distt. Chamba. If all the employees who are duty bound to serve anywhere in the State, will start seeking their transfer on the ground that their place of posting is away from their native village, then the entire system will collapse. Ageing parents, sick relatives and family problems cannot be reason to request/demand transfer. Hence this request deserves to be rejected - 4 - Now, therefore, the undersigned, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, finds no merit in the representation of Sh. Jitender Nirala, Principal as he is working at present place of posting w.e.f. 24.05.2025 and he is having extreme short stay. Hence, his representation is rejected and he is directed to continue at GSSS Baghei Garh Distt. Chamba.”. The Competent Authority has correctly observed in the impugned order that transferred place being far away from employee’s native village, ageing parents, sick relatives and family problems, cannot be the sole reason for cancelling the transfer order. However, at the same time, the fact cannot be lost sight of that the transfer policy itself provides that ordinarily, a person, who has already served for normal tenure in hard/tribal/sub-cadre areas, would not be posted in these areas again. It was on this ground that Jitender Nirala2 was instituted by the petitioner assailing his transfer to GSSS Baghei Garh, District Chamba. It was the case of the petitioner that he had already served hard and tribal area previously for requisite tenure, therefore, could not be transferred again to another hard and tribal area of GSSS Baghei Garh, District Chamba, under notification dated 28.04.2025. - 5 - The impugned office order now passed by respondent No.1 on 25.09.2025 though acknowledges that petitioner had previously served in hard /tribal area, but does not deal with effect/consequences thereof upon the impugned transfer order, whereunder petitioner has been again transferred to hard area. In case, post of Principal at GSSS Baghei Garh, District Chamba had been lying vacant, it was for the respondents to fill the post in accordance with law, however, for filling the said post, the petitioner, who had already served hard area for requisite tenure, cannot be compelled to serve the hard area once again. Those who have never served hard areas, are also liable to serve these areas. It is, however, clarified that above observations are not to be construed as if the petitioner is to be continued at GSSS Panjain, District Mandi, where he has completed his normal tenure. Petitioner is liable to be transferred, but in accordance with law and as per applicable transfer policy. 5. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure P-7) is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.1/Competent Authority is - 6 - directed to consider the case of the petitioner for transfer afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view above observations, petitioner’s representation as also the transfer policy. Fresh exercise be carried within two weeks from today. Copy of order so passed, be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge October 16, 2025 R.Atal